Skoczlois v. Vinocour

• Decision Date: 11 July 1917
• Citation: 221 N.Y. 276,116 N.E. 1004
• Parties: SKOCZLOIS v. VINOCOUR et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

221 N.Y. 276

116 N.E. 1004

SKOCZLOIS

v.VINOCOUR et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 11, 1917.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Anna Skoczlois to obtain compensation for death of her husband, opposed by Philip Vinocour, employer, and the AEtna Life Insurance Company. Compensation was awarded, and the award affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department (162 N. Y. Supp. 1144), and the employer and Insurance Company appeal. Reversed as to Insurance Company and affirmed as to employer.

William H. Foster, of Syracuse, for appellants.

Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This appeal is from an order of the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission for the death of Stanislaus Skoczlois, husband of the claimant. The appellants contend the order and award should be reversed and the claim dismissed: (1) Because there is no evidence to support the findings of the Commission that Skoczlois died as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (2) because the policy of insurance had been canceled prior to the accident.

[1] As to the first contention, a careful consideration of the record satisfies me that the findings made by the Commission and affirmed by the Appellate Division are correct, but as to the second they are erroneous. The policy was issued on the 13th of July, 1914, and in consideration of the premium agreed to be paid ($30.90) the company insured Vinocour against accidents to his employés for a term of one year. Under the terms of the policy Vinocour's post office address was given as Granitville, Port Richmond, Richmond county, N. Y., and his place of business 17 Vedder avenue, Port Richmond, N. Y. Vinocour did not pay the premium at the time the policy was issued, or any part of it until after the accident to and death of Skoczlois. On the 19th of December, 1914, no part of the premium having been paid, the insurance company notified Vinocour it had elected to cancel the policy, such cancellation to take effect on December 31, 1914, at midnight. The notice was in the form of a letter, sent by registered mail, directed as follows: ‘Mr. Philip Vincour, Vedder avenue, Grantville, Port Richmond, N. Y.’ The letter reached the proper post office on the 21st of December, 1914, but was never called for by or delivered to Vinocour, though the post office authorities at that place sent him several notices that a registered letter was in the office ready for delivery. It remained in the post office until January 8, 1915, when it was returned to the insurance company. On the same day that the insurance company gave notice to Vinocour it had canceled the policy it also gave notice to the Commission that the policy had been canceled, and at the same time wrote it as follows:

‘In accordance with subdivision 5 of section 54 of the New York Compensation Law, we have canceled the above policy, copy of the notice of cancellation being attached hereto, which please file.’

The accident occurred, and Skoczlois died on the 5th of May, 1915, and up to that time no part of the premium had been paid, but three days thereafter Vinocour sent a check for $10 to the insurance company, which it retained and applied towards the premium due at the time the policy was canceled. After making such application there still remained due $2.35, for which it sent a bill to Vinocour, asking for payment, and at the same time informed him that the policy was canceled on the 31st of December, 1914, for nonpayment of premium.

The Commission reached the conclusion, and this apparently was the view of the Appellate Division, that the attempt on the part of the insurance company to cancel was ineffectual by reason of the fact that Vinocour was written ‘Vincour’ and Granitville ‘Grantville.’ I think this is too technical and narrow a view to take of the matter, especially in view of the fact that no one was misled by the misspelling. To hold otherwise is to sacrifice substance to form, notwithstanding the letter reached the proper post office and the authorities understood for whom it was intended and gave such person notice of its being there ready for delivery.

The policy provided that it might be canceled by sending to the insured at his lastknown place of residence a notice by registered letter ten days prior to the time such cancellation took effect, and at the same time giving the Commission notice that the policy had been canceled. The notices thus given not only complied with the policy, but with the statute relating to cancellation. Workmen's Compensation Law, § 54, pt. 5. It was immaterial, therefore, whether the insured...